Greek Dominance of the Balkans Scenario

Delvestius

Banned
This is an Idea I thought of today and I really like it. While I feign to call it a "Byzantine Survival" scenario, it is contingent on it lasting for longer than IRTL.

Essentially, the Greeks became much more isolationist from around the 12th century and made a number of interesting political and militaristic moves.

With the arrival of the Slejuk Turks, all notions of a cross-Mediterranean empire (Particularly Norman-held Italy, Fatimid Egypt and Tunisia) were abandoned for the time being, and even much of Anatolia was condemned as lost land (though a tribute was exacted on the Beyliks in Eastern Anatolia), save for the logistically sound lands around Nicaea and perhaps some fringe around Ionia. This was a political move that that along with relatively open communication and travel between the Turks and Greeks and low animosity, was able to distract them long enough for the mongols to arrive and make any move against Greece unable to them. Instead of choosing to make a move against the Turks while their attention was focused on the east, they decided to remain centralized for protection in the likely case of Turkish fall.

Being such open and excellent traders, the Greeks were quick to secure the recipes and means to produce a dangerous alchemical powder from the east, and by the mid fourteenth century, managed to outfit the walls of Constantinople with an early bombard system, further cementing their position. Within a century, they had a formidably well-trained infantry contingent armed with powerful arquebuses which they integrated with pike formations (This was a neo-classical notion reminscent of the Phalanx formations that Greek propagandists used to their advantage). Units of the Kataphractoi Corps also began to be equipped with pistols and eventually became their own cavalry unit: The Gavalari (Rider) Corps, a light cavalry group that was used to great success as skirmishers and raiders

By now, the Greek Vassals of Bulgaria and Serbia have essentially turned into border provinces with autonomy only in the slightest sense. The Venetians hold many Coastal territories in Illryia, as well as influence over the inland Croats. The King of Hungary titles himself "Holy King of the Magyars and Dacians, as he asserts dominance over the duchies of Transylvania and Wallachia.

---

The timeline would go on to detail the burning of Nicaea, the first, second and third failed sieges of Constantinople, the conversion of the Magyars and Romanians (and mayhaps the Lithuanians) to Orthodoxy, the territorial acquisitions of a Renaissance Byzantium both brief and longstanding, a period of Holy wars between Catholic West and Orthodox East (that the Reformists in Germany and Scandinavia take to in a very mercenary manner) and the linguistic ramifications including the almost complete disappearance of the South Slavic language family and the existence of the Hellenistic branch of languages and dialects.

Please tell me where I may run into some problems and maybe some sources I could look at to get started. I have a better feeling about this one than either of the two I'v started.
 
Last edited:
Apologies in advance for bluntness:

Byzantium becoming isolationist is Byzantium asking to be buggered both east and west.

There's no way you're going to extract a tribute from the eastern Beyliks while abandoning all but the western fifth (or so) - and I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean by this: "This was a political move that that along with relatively open communication and travel between the Turks and Greeks and low animosity, was able to distract them long enough for the mongols to arrive and make any move against Greece unable to them" - the Turks aren't going to just play along with being 'distracted" by the Byzantines abandoning most of Anatolia to them.

The Magyars/Hungarians are already Catholic, though Orthodox Lithuania is hardly out of the question, and up to 1185 OTL, Bulgaria is just a border province - Serbia is debatable, but Bulgaria is definitely Byzantine.

Could go on, but let's start there and see what we can do with it.
 

Delvestius

Banned
There's no way you're going to extract a tribute from the eastern Beyliks while abandoning all but the western fifth (or so)

This was an afterthought, so it can easily be removed.

- and I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean by this: "This was a political move that that along with relatively open communication and travel between the Turks and Greeks and low animosity, was able to distract them long enough for the mongols to arrive and make any move against Greece unable to them" - the Turks aren't going to just play along with being 'distracted" by the Byzantines abandoning most of Anatolia to them.

I guess what I was trying to say is that a Byzantium with less of a concern for Anatolia may appear to be less confrontational to the Turks, while at the same time allowing them to keep all of their forces tightly fortified in Greece in the event that they actually had to turn back attackers.

The Magyars/Hungarians are already Catholic, though Orthodox Lithuania is hardly out of the question, and up to 1185 OTL, Bulgaria is just a border province - Serbia is debatable, but Bulgaria is definitely Byzantine.

Indeed they are, I was imagining a TL in which they got re-converted to the Orthodox church, something a bribed (or actually faithful) King could start.

As far as the Bulgarians, I know they got independent once or twice, so in this TL the First Bulgarian Empire was vassalized and the start of integration happened then.
 
I guess what I was trying to say is that a Byzantium with less of a concern for Anatolia may appear to be less confrontational to the Turks, while at the same time allowing them to keep all of their forces tightly fortified in Greece in the event that they actually had to turn back attackers.

The problem is that a Byzantium with less of a concern for Anatolia is going to be saying to the Turks that Anatolia is free for the taking, and with that happening, the forces available to the Byzantines diminish.

Indeed they are, I was imagining a TL in which they got re-converted to the Orthodox church, something a bribed (or actually faithful) King could start.

Not sure how that would work, but I'm open to it being explored. Magyar Christianity is a century old at this point (1100).

As far as the Bulgarians, I know they got independent once or twice, so in this TL the First Bulgarian Empire was vassalized and the start of integration happened then.

You're going to have to explain why Basil "I will smash the Bulgars if that the last thing I do" decides not to incorporate the area into the empire directly.

Also, if you do pick a POD back that far, why Manzikert etc. unfold more or less like OTL. That was hardly inevitable.
 

Delvestius

Banned
The problem is that a Byzantium with less of a concern for Anatolia is going to be saying to the Turks that Anatolia is free for the taking, and with that happening, the forces available to the Byzantines diminish.

Perhaps instead of giving it up outright, they stay primarily on the defensive, and only hold enough territory to hold their own against the (currently) disunited Turks. That mayhaps be a considerable PoD or PoD side effect, the indefinite disunity of the Beyliks.

You're going to have to explain why Basil "I will smash the Bulgars if that the last thing I do" decides not to incorporate the area into the empire directly.

Also, if you do pick a POD back that far, why Manzikert etc. unfold more or less like OTL. That was hardly inevitable.

I suppose I was just gonna say he listened to an advisor or soothsayer or just came up with it on his own: The notion that slow and steady wins the race, and the hearts of the Bulgars.

I agree with Manzikert.
 
Delvestius,
When is the starting point of your story?It might be vitally important,there is a way to eliminate many of your problems,but I will leave that for later;
Your problem will be the Turks migrating west from central Asia to the borders of Anatolia,and you cannot concentrate in western Anatolia only,since you have substantial Greek populations and Greek cities along the North coast of Anatolia(Pontus) with a belt inland.Nomads migrating tend to saturate their target aereas and try to eliminate obstacles of other peoples.They will find the Greeks in their way and true blue to their character they will do what they can to overrun others until they arrive in front of the absolute obstacle(the sea).That is your major problem.

The most dangerous 'alchemical'(?)-I hope you don't want to turn it ASB-is gunpowder which was invented by the Chinese in 603 AD.You said that the Greeks were traders,as you know the caravans from the east came to the Mediterranean,it is easy to follow their return trip and I believe that was what adventurous traders did those days,and Cathay(China) was already known to the Greeks.Good diplomatic relations with the Mongols would help greatly and might eliminate the Turkish problem once and for all.

So think about the date(approximately) that you wish the Thread to start because that would change the parametres...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps instead of giving it up outright, they stay primarily on the defensive, and only hold enough territory to hold their own against the (currently) disunited Turks. That mayhaps be a considerable PoD or PoD side effect, the indefinite disunity of the Beyliks.

Good luck maintaining that "indefinite disunity" though.

I suppose I was just gonna say he listened to an advisor or soothsayer or just came up with it on his own: The notion that slow and steady wins the race, and the hearts of the Bulgars.

I agree with Manzikert.

Basil's OTL policies worked well, and even that of his successors kept Bulgaria in the empire for another century and a half after he died.

Still, if you really want Basil to vassalize it instead of annexing it, I don't think that's impossible.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Delvestius,
When is the starting point of your story?It might be vitally important,there is a way to eliminate many of your problems,but I will leave that for later;

I think the PoD is going to be 1071, which is when the Bulgarian revolt of Georgi Voiteh happened. Basically, I want to butterfly the rebellion so that more troops could have been allocated to the East, which still resulted in the loss of Central Anatolia but also the exodus of Greeks from Syria and and Pamphylia, which were annexed by either Egyptians or Crusader States. Pontus and Ionia would hold true, and by 1100 the territory of the Byzantines would include Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia/Serbia, Pontus, Ionia, Crete and Cyprus, and whose power is still slightly greater than that of the Turks. I would start from here.

The most dangerous 'alchemical'(?)-I hope you don't want to turn it ASB-is gunpowder which was invented by the Chinese in 603 AD.You said that the Greeks were traders,as you know the caravans from the east came to the Mediterranean,it is easy to follow their return trip and I believe that was what adventurous traders did those days,and Cathay(China) was already known to the Greeks.Good diplomatic relations with the Mongols would help greatly and might eliminate the Turkish problem once and for all.

Yeh, it's gunpowder. I think that, in addition with an improved Greek fire is enough to keep them ahead of the game for a little while longer.
 
Last edited:
I think the PoD is going to be 1071, which is when the Bulgarian revolt of Georgi Voiteh happened. Basically, I want to butterfly the rebellion so that more troops could have been allocated to the East, which still resulted in the loss of Central Anatolia but also the exodus of Greeks from Syria and and Pamphylia, which were annexed by either Egyptians or Crusader States. Pontus and Ionia would hold true, and by 1100 the territory of the Byzantines would include Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia/Serbia, Pontus, Ionia, Crete and Cyprus, and whose power is still slightly greater than that of the Turks. I would start from here.



Yeh, it's gunpowder. I think that, in addition with an improved Greek fire is enough to keep them ahead of the game for a little while longer.

Everyone who starts a Thread on Byzantium starts with 1071 and Romanus IV Diogenes and the decade before the Comnenoi dynasty,a period already beaten to death;what about the Macedonian dynasty as starting point? Nikiphoros Phocas as reigning emperor when the empire was near its apoge and the entire Anatolia and part of Armenia were under Byzantium,immediately after the fall of Crete for example?(and have Basil the Great-the Bulgar slayer have a very capable son...) then,with the empire at its best,Alp Arslan will have a very rude awakening(although to be honest he offered terms of peace to Romanus who rejected them....)
 
Last edited:
Top